1. Title, director and release year?
The Vanishing of the Bees, George Langworthy and Maryam Henein, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that the bees are in trouble and if we don’t do anything to stop it, we may be forced to re-define our agriculture for the worst. In recent years, commercial apiarists have begun experiencing a phenomenon never before seen: Colony Collapse Disorder. In a typical season, around 1/3 of the hives that were being used for commercial pollination fail and the bees vanish without a trace. Typically, as is for the case of disease or parasites, the bees will be scattered, dead around the beehive. When scientists tried to intervene, they found that the bees going towards collapse aren’t just sick, they are riddled with disease. Mites, bacteria, viruses, and fungus were all present. This has led some to believe that CCD is nothing more than an unfortunate combination of diseases. However, the apiarists that this documentary follows have a much different theory, but no information to back it up. No one will do the research to see if systemic pesticides are causing sickness among the bees. These pesticides focus on having a long residual throughout the lifetime of the plant unlike conventional pesticides. This longevity causes the honey collected to become poisonous, so six months later when that honey is eaten, the bees get sick and die. France encountered this problem when systemic pesticides were first introduced, so they effectively banned them. We have had this problem before, but no one wants to study the problem since there is none in the eyes of economists.
When the bees die in one hive, the keepers split the strongest hives in two to produce the same amount of bees. This is a terribly short-sided solution, but it works in the eyes of the economy. Bees are shipped around the country literally from end to end in order to pollinate. This forces apiarists to feed the bees sugar water over generations of bees. There is no proof, but the feeding of these empty calories to the bees may be causing problems as well. This combined with the monocultures that the bees encounter on farms is severely limiting their nutritional intake.
The way that these proems can be solved is to, first off, ban the use of systemic pesticides. The elimination of these residual toxins should allow for the recovery of the general health of the bees. The second part to the solution is to make a movement away from commercial beekeeping which requires the shipping of bees in questionable conditions across the country and towards hobby beekeeping on a local level.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument is made by interviewing professional beekeepers, following in their travels, and an overall narration which discusses the overall ideas or processes. The narration also provides scientific facts. I don’t know if this was intended, but the narrator definitely sounds like she could be a little girl. This gave me a huge emotional sensation since it made me consider the future of people who will come after me. Many of the beekeepers also ended up crying at some point in the film which is understandable. I couldn’t imagine having everything that I cared about in my life dying before my eyes, slowly with nothing that I can do. I wouldnn’t even know why it was happening. Their passion for the topic really brought up my own making the entire film very powerful in my opinion.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film discussed the political, economic, and ecological impact of the vanishing of the bees. Pollination is, more or less, the driving force of our agricultural industry and commercial bee use is one of the main sources of pollination on large farms. The film also explores the political aspect of the EPA and why its laws are resistant to change for the betterment of the bees. The French government is even gone into with some detail to show how willing and responsive a government can be when a problem such as this arises. Finally, the movie focused on the economics of beekeeping and why so many keepers use questionable techniques to upkeep thousands of hive on the go.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The treatment of the bees was the most interesting to me. There seemed to be two schools of thought: that bees are to be respected and not abused, and that bees are a wonderful resource for man. These ideas seem to go back in history all the way to mythology where bees were associated with feminine gods and a desirable, tradable good. Honestly, I didn’t know that queen bees could be artificially inseminated, but they can and the process is honestly a little shocking. Maybe it’s because I’m a little put-off by bugs. Most commercial apiarists love their bees just as much as a hobbyist, but are forced to treat them in sub-optimal conditions since they are being used for economic gain.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not compelled by the amount of scientific evidence presented by the film. Everything that they claimed made sense, there were some events to back them up, there was a lot of soft science that backed up the ideas, but hard, scientific evidence was absent. Unfortunately, that was kind of the point of the film. The EPA, which regulates all of the things demonized in the film, does no research on its own, but rather obtains research from the producers of the products. Of the tests mentioned in the movie, most were not in depth enough to provide any significant information and all were skewed by the corporations trying to pass the product. The point of studies should be studying low dosage over time while most focused on three days max and only on adult bees.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses the grocery shopper in all Americans. It strives to show us how important the bees are in our personal lives by making what we put on the table. Most importantly, it shows us what changes need to be made within our government regulations to prevent this and future problems due to reckless chemical use and legalization. Finally, the documentary does go to great lengths to try to get the viewers, who may come from urban backgrounds, to appreciate something in nature which otherwise may just be viewed as a pest.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film could have easily been enhanced by adding some more scientific value. However, that doesn’t mean that I want a list of facts. Most of the beekeepers interviewed an followed mostly talked about their experiences while scientists talked of future problems associated with bee death. I would have loved statistics on pollination, how much farm yield increases, concentration of CCD overlayed with systemic pesticide use, and so on. Simple steps such as these would have given me more insight on the issue and helped me believe in the message a little more than just taking their word as truth.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
There was a wonder quote in the movie which talked about how this country doesn’t need 60,000 hives owned by one man, but rather 60,000 people owning one hive each. Such a distribution of the bee population would improve local wildlife, cut down on massive shipping of bees, add a sense of respect for the animal, and help bees be treated better since they are no longer simply a way to make profit. Also, the film encouraged shoppers to not go get honey that isn’t 100% honey. Apparently, a lot of honey is cheaper than water by the pound because of alternative sugar additives like corn syrup and beat sugar. Not purchasing these products will help keep honey pure, healthy, and made by happy bees. Also, apiarists will be able to compete price-wise which may help reduce commercial bee use which is the main source of income for them.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
First off, I wanted more scientific evidence on the disappearance of the bees and possible link to pesticides. This article gave me a little more insight, but I guess I have to face the facts that there are no tests yet which confirm it one way or the other. If there were, the pesticides would no longer be in use. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.bd2664988112b33ebe7091069cfec28e.8b1
Secondly, I wanted to see how much bees actually made in produce with agricultural pollination. Honestly, the figures astounded me. By simply having bees, millions or even billions of additional dollars can be made. No wonder they ship these things all around the country to pollinate crops. http://interests.caes.uga.edu/insectlab/agimpact.html
The Vanishing of the Bees, George Langworthy and Maryam Henein, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that the bees are in trouble and if we don’t do anything to stop it, we may be forced to re-define our agriculture for the worst. In recent years, commercial apiarists have begun experiencing a phenomenon never before seen: Colony Collapse Disorder. In a typical season, around 1/3 of the hives that were being used for commercial pollination fail and the bees vanish without a trace. Typically, as is for the case of disease or parasites, the bees will be scattered, dead around the beehive. When scientists tried to intervene, they found that the bees going towards collapse aren’t just sick, they are riddled with disease. Mites, bacteria, viruses, and fungus were all present. This has led some to believe that CCD is nothing more than an unfortunate combination of diseases. However, the apiarists that this documentary follows have a much different theory, but no information to back it up. No one will do the research to see if systemic pesticides are causing sickness among the bees. These pesticides focus on having a long residual throughout the lifetime of the plant unlike conventional pesticides. This longevity causes the honey collected to become poisonous, so six months later when that honey is eaten, the bees get sick and die. France encountered this problem when systemic pesticides were first introduced, so they effectively banned them. We have had this problem before, but no one wants to study the problem since there is none in the eyes of economists.
When the bees die in one hive, the keepers split the strongest hives in two to produce the same amount of bees. This is a terribly short-sided solution, but it works in the eyes of the economy. Bees are shipped around the country literally from end to end in order to pollinate. This forces apiarists to feed the bees sugar water over generations of bees. There is no proof, but the feeding of these empty calories to the bees may be causing problems as well. This combined with the monocultures that the bees encounter on farms is severely limiting their nutritional intake.
The way that these proems can be solved is to, first off, ban the use of systemic pesticides. The elimination of these residual toxins should allow for the recovery of the general health of the bees. The second part to the solution is to make a movement away from commercial beekeeping which requires the shipping of bees in questionable conditions across the country and towards hobby beekeeping on a local level.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument is made by interviewing professional beekeepers, following in their travels, and an overall narration which discusses the overall ideas or processes. The narration also provides scientific facts. I don’t know if this was intended, but the narrator definitely sounds like she could be a little girl. This gave me a huge emotional sensation since it made me consider the future of people who will come after me. Many of the beekeepers also ended up crying at some point in the film which is understandable. I couldn’t imagine having everything that I cared about in my life dying before my eyes, slowly with nothing that I can do. I wouldnn’t even know why it was happening. Their passion for the topic really brought up my own making the entire film very powerful in my opinion.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film discussed the political, economic, and ecological impact of the vanishing of the bees. Pollination is, more or less, the driving force of our agricultural industry and commercial bee use is one of the main sources of pollination on large farms. The film also explores the political aspect of the EPA and why its laws are resistant to change for the betterment of the bees. The French government is even gone into with some detail to show how willing and responsive a government can be when a problem such as this arises. Finally, the movie focused on the economics of beekeeping and why so many keepers use questionable techniques to upkeep thousands of hive on the go.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The treatment of the bees was the most interesting to me. There seemed to be two schools of thought: that bees are to be respected and not abused, and that bees are a wonderful resource for man. These ideas seem to go back in history all the way to mythology where bees were associated with feminine gods and a desirable, tradable good. Honestly, I didn’t know that queen bees could be artificially inseminated, but they can and the process is honestly a little shocking. Maybe it’s because I’m a little put-off by bugs. Most commercial apiarists love their bees just as much as a hobbyist, but are forced to treat them in sub-optimal conditions since they are being used for economic gain.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not compelled by the amount of scientific evidence presented by the film. Everything that they claimed made sense, there were some events to back them up, there was a lot of soft science that backed up the ideas, but hard, scientific evidence was absent. Unfortunately, that was kind of the point of the film. The EPA, which regulates all of the things demonized in the film, does no research on its own, but rather obtains research from the producers of the products. Of the tests mentioned in the movie, most were not in depth enough to provide any significant information and all were skewed by the corporations trying to pass the product. The point of studies should be studying low dosage over time while most focused on three days max and only on adult bees.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses the grocery shopper in all Americans. It strives to show us how important the bees are in our personal lives by making what we put on the table. Most importantly, it shows us what changes need to be made within our government regulations to prevent this and future problems due to reckless chemical use and legalization. Finally, the documentary does go to great lengths to try to get the viewers, who may come from urban backgrounds, to appreciate something in nature which otherwise may just be viewed as a pest.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film could have easily been enhanced by adding some more scientific value. However, that doesn’t mean that I want a list of facts. Most of the beekeepers interviewed an followed mostly talked about their experiences while scientists talked of future problems associated with bee death. I would have loved statistics on pollination, how much farm yield increases, concentration of CCD overlayed with systemic pesticide use, and so on. Simple steps such as these would have given me more insight on the issue and helped me believe in the message a little more than just taking their word as truth.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
There was a wonder quote in the movie which talked about how this country doesn’t need 60,000 hives owned by one man, but rather 60,000 people owning one hive each. Such a distribution of the bee population would improve local wildlife, cut down on massive shipping of bees, add a sense of respect for the animal, and help bees be treated better since they are no longer simply a way to make profit. Also, the film encouraged shoppers to not go get honey that isn’t 100% honey. Apparently, a lot of honey is cheaper than water by the pound because of alternative sugar additives like corn syrup and beat sugar. Not purchasing these products will help keep honey pure, healthy, and made by happy bees. Also, apiarists will be able to compete price-wise which may help reduce commercial bee use which is the main source of income for them.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
First off, I wanted more scientific evidence on the disappearance of the bees and possible link to pesticides. This article gave me a little more insight, but I guess I have to face the facts that there are no tests yet which confirm it one way or the other. If there were, the pesticides would no longer be in use.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.bd2664988112b33ebe7091069cfec28e.8b1
Secondly, I wanted to see how much bees actually made in produce with agricultural pollination. Honestly, the figures astounded me. By simply having bees, millions or even billions of additional dollars can be made. No wonder they ship these things all around the country to pollinate crops.
http://interests.caes.uga.edu/insectlab/agimpact.html